This is the first collection of essays by Canadian nature poet extraordinaire Don McKay. With this book, McKay contributes to a philosophical conversaThis is the first collection of essays by Canadian nature poet extraordinaire Don McKay. With this book, McKay contributes to a philosophical conversation about language and the world that some of his fellow poets had previously written about, such as Jan Zwicky, Tim Lilburn, and Dennis Lee. Being a nature poet, McKay takes the natural world as his focus. If the natural world is something that is Other to humanity, then how does the Self relate to this Other? Increasingly, the relationship between humans and the natural world has been overwhelmingly one-sided, with humans imposing control onto the world. Our technology, our tools (including language), are used in this manner.

In modern thought, wilderness is seen as a space that is in opposition to human civilization. McKay asks us to see this separation as contrived. Wilderness is not a set of spaces outside the human experience, but rather wilderness is anything that evades the mind's appropriations, or conventions. In other words, what McKay calls wilderness, is the real world; the implication is that human conventions cannot truly re-present this reality. There is a gap between Self and Other which cannot fully be bridged. Humans, in our arrogance, tend to believe that we can understand the world through our language. Something McKay asks us to accept is that no system of knowing will unify us with the world: we will always be isolated from the world around us, with only our ideas of it in our minds.

Once we realize this inherent inadequacy of language, we can choose to engage in a healthier relationship with the world around us. Language does not have to remain a one-dimensional tool that we use to control the world. By letting wilderness invade our language, our language will be changed. This change, as a result of the invasion, should better reflect the real world. As a poet, McKay points to metaphor as a prime example of wilderness invading language. With metaphor, language admits that it is inadequate: the rational use of language cannot represent something in the world; there is really no straightforward way to say something. Metaphor jumps across distant regions of experience in order to explain something, and this jump hints at the jump we hope to make between the Self and Other. Of course the jump between Self and Other is never achieved, but each successful metaphor gets us a little bit closer. We are given a brief glimpse, and then it is gone. When that feeling is achieved, we can recognize that there are realities beyond us, beyond our understanding, and they deserve our respect and attention. We are constantly translating our experience of the world into language; it is not the act of translating that is evil, it is forgetting that you are translating. The point McKay is trying to make is that we should enact translation of the world thoughtfully.

In this manner, McKay is also rejecting Romantic views of the world. This includes "back to nature" types, which only serves to reinforce the culture/nature split (by reversing the binary). In Romantic thought, radical unification with the world is possible. When we assume that radical union, or radical understanding of the world is possible, we are given the power to assume that our own reality of the world is the same as other's reality of the world, which only serves to erase realities of the world which are not human (or our own, since different realities exist in human communities/individuals, too). While Romantic thought claims to have the natural world as its focus, in the end the individual human Self is the only real focus, and the Other simply gets wrapped up in its story. This also serves to reclaim nature writing from the Romantic writings that make it so trite, and turn it into a meaningful and radical engagement with the world....more

In much of this writing, the American myth of the freedom and the frontier are fully present; although perhaps in a slightly altered form (there are sIn much of this writing, the American myth of the freedom and the frontier are fully present; although perhaps in a slightly altered form (there are some resonances with writings of Thoreau, however). About half of this book is nature writing: observations of the natural world where the human isn't presented as central. The second half is essays on ecology and conservation. While this can all be read at surface level, there are these very American myths under the surface which are much more interesting.

Part of the founding myth of America is the myth of individual freedom. This freedom can usually be found by heading west, into the frontier. The further you find yourself from established society, the more free you'll be. Because of the nature of this myth, paradise is always to be found in the past, or at the beginning of things. The myth of the garden of Eden is an obvious parallel, and resonances with that Bible story can be felt throughout this text. The reason paradise is always found in the past is because in the beginning everything was wilderness (the wilderness being the absence of human conventions, etc.). Since human establishments don't exist there, the individual can only find true freedom there. Humans are in their ideal state is a state-of-nature. In some ways this text, and others like it, are the American myth running up against the fact that North America has a western coastline, and therefore an end. Paradoxically the human striving towards (this particular form of) freedom negates freedom: the further into the frontier the human goes, the less wilderness there is and more established human society and development.

An environmental conscience can have strange sources. While Leopold's pleas for (proper) conservation might seem innocent enough, occasionally this myth rears its head. Yes, we should conserve wild spaces. Why?: because individual Man needs to be free! In some ways, Leopold's need for conservation stems from the fact that this manner of being American will be lost if the land is totally developed.

As a result of this, and partly because of the paradise myth, Leopold is guilty of being a Romantic. He romanticizes the natural world, the past. first nations peoples, and therefore demonizes development and Western society. While conservation is obviously not a bad thing, it becomes obvious that what Leopold wants to conserve is an idealized, stable past; a past where all wildlife lives in a continual balance and harmony that need not change. This, of course, is not the way of the real world functions. While it might seem that Leopold wants the wildlife he witnesses to continue existing for its own sake, it is obvious at several points throughout the text that he gives into the Romantic position, which brings everything back to Man. Nature this, nature that: because Man.

While I do consider myself an environmentalist, I did not enjoy this book; mostly because I take issue with most of his philosophical assumptions. Also I found his nature writing mostly boring and uncritical. But perhaps I am too quick to judge: this reminds me of stories of how huge leaps were made in the environmental movement because the NRA wants everyone to be able to shoot animals forever! (I'm not anti-hunting: it's just funny, no?)...more

This second collection of essays by Tim Lilburn takes its point of departure from George Grant's Technology and Empire. Grant says that European-desceThis second collection of essays by Tim Lilburn takes its point of departure from George Grant's Technology and Empire. Grant says that European-descended North Americans are doomed to ever be at home here; our home-building here was based on violent colonialism and subjugation, and we perpetuate this legacy today. Our ideologies, our philosophies, religions, well never allow us to sink into this place, because they are not of here: they are of elsewhere, and therefore will always separate us from this place - never let us be at home here. Lilburn takes this statement as his starting point, but throws away its pessimism. Lilburn agrees that we (I say "we" because this book seems to be addressed to settler culture) are not living here well, and are not at-home in North America, but disagrees that this is an impossibility. European Enlightenment, rationalist thought has dominated our cultural imagination, but Lilburn sets out to unearth texts in the classical Western tradition that can give us nourishment to be at home in the world. These alternative readings, and buried texts, are a part of us, Lilburn says, even if we are unaware of it. A single-dimensional approach to the world has dominated European thought, and here Lilburn sets out to re-reveal those other dimensions. Lilburn's main focus for this project is some classical Greek texts, including Plato, and also some early Christian (and mystical) texts. The narrative that joins all these texts, for Lilburn, is a strain of thought related to erotics, and the contemplative tradition. From them (I think) there follows a sort of radical respect for everything of the world that is not the Self, and a keeping of the Self's ego in check.

It is fair to say that these essays take a very academic approach. You're enjoyment of Lilburn's writing here might depend on your experience in the academic world, especially in classics and philosophy. I found this book very interesting on an intellectual level, and I particularly like the goal that drives the book, but I didn't enjoy the book as much as I've enjoyed his other writing. In these essays, Lilburn has made a separation between his ideas and the enactment of those ideas. I very much preferred his first book of essays, Living in the World as if it Were Home, as I felt those essays combined his philosophies and their enactment simultaneously. However, there is obviously still a place for this sort of writing, and what he has to say remains incredibly important....more

This book can serve as a really great "best of" collection for Lilburn (up until 2003, at least). It is a concise book, leaving only room for some ofThis book can serve as a really great "best of" collection for Lilburn (up until 2003, at least). It is a concise book, leaving only room for some of his best work. It could also serve as a really great introduction to his works. Like I said, all the poems are wonderful, so would be a good place to start in that regards. But there is also a really great, accessible introduction to his work written by the compiler, Alison Calder. The essay very clearly places Lilburn in his context, including his place and life; and it places him in a prairie's writerly tradition. It also clearly states some of the philosophical ideas that drive his work (which he has written about in his essays). From there, the collection is not too long (39 pages of poetry), and so is not overwhelming and is more easily digested than a typical "selected" collection. This collection also makes having some of his earlier poetry in your collection possible, as his early books are long out of print. Thankfully, this book pays equal attention to each of his books (up to Kill-site). This collection also has a thoughtful and engaging afterword written by Lilburn himself. In it, he gives a personal reflection on his family history; his ideas of silence; of being born into a colonial intellectual tradition; of being a settler on stolen land, and what that means in terms of how he relates to the land; and of his ideas of poetics and language, and how engaging with them thoughtfully can lead to better ways of being. This is a really great collection of poems, and is particularly good if you haven't yet read Lilburn's poetry widely, and would like to have an entrance into it. My only advice is to make sure you're reading the poems out loud! They are incredibly musical and joyful to hear spoken....more

This is a really interesting book about the Canadian literary imagination up until the '70s when it was written. It was also a rallying call for CanliThis is a really interesting book about the Canadian literary imagination up until the '70s when it was written. It was also a rallying call for Canlit to be unified as a literature and to be taken seriously (and so an important milestone for Canlit nerds like myself). I found the first half of the book particularly compelling (I really enjoyed the chapter on land and how our writers have approached it), but it becomes a bit repetitive and predictable as you get into the second half. While the main thesis might seem a bit dated at this point, I still think it's interesting to read today as it gives a sense of the history of how we have seen ourselves, and I enjoyed thinking about how that image has grown and changed from this vision. Like any thesis, Atwood's cannot explain everything and there were numerous times throughout the book that I felt as though I were listening to an interesting discussion, and then all a sudden Atwood would barge into the room and scream "just shut the hell up everybody - it's all just a question of SURVIVAL". But at the same time I think her thesis is an interesting point of departure for having a discussion about our cultural/literary imagination and how we see ourselves.

I really appreciated when she engaged in literary historical analysis, such as early in the book where she explains the British literary conventions of the picturesque, the sublime, and Romanticism. She goes on to explain their origins and place in Europe, and how they were imported to Canada by pioneers settling and writing in Canada (and subsequently why those forms failed to explain this place and were inadequate). In some ways I think this explains why we have seen ourselves as victims: we were given a set of master narratives from Elsewhere which were essentially useless in providing a sense of this place, and instead of turning against those narratives, we turned against this place and made the land an enemy (how many Canadians complain about winter?). We became victims of this place, merely surviving. I imagine that part of Atwood's aim in writing this book was to identify this problem so that we could move beyond it and create different narratives that are created by this place and a reflection of it (and I do think, by the last chapter, she shows how things are moving in this direction).

I also really appreciated some of the comparisons to other nation myths, such as England's island, or the frontier in America. Like the survival thesis, they also don't explain everything, but it is still interesting to think about a national consciousness and how it can inform the attitudes of the people living in that nation. This also reminded me of a quote from Dennis Lee, where he is talking about America and Canada, and he says that since America broke away from an old myth, it had to create a new one. This means that America has always had a ready-made myth to live up to: a sort of utopic vision. Canada, on the other hand, never had a ready-made myth like this. For us there is merely a sense that we owe allegiance to something greater than ourselves. In the beginning, that was Britain when we were a colony. However, once those master narratives failed (if you will) we were left with a lingering sense that we still should owe an allegiance to something greater than ourselves. And I think the suggestion was that we are constantly growing into that greater something (as opposed to trying to live up to an ideal already complete in the past). Although this kind of "Canada is different from America because..." talk is kind of funny and dated, I still like it. Personally, I think that allegiance we owe is to this place - which was probably Atwood's intention in writing this book....more

This collection of essays from Canadian poet Dennis Lee officially canonizes him as one of Canada's philosopher poets (in the same tradition as Tim LiThis collection of essays from Canadian poet Dennis Lee officially canonizes him as one of Canada's philosopher poets (in the same tradition as Tim Lilburn, Jan Zwicky and Don McKay to name a few). Like Zwicky and co. Lee's philosophy establishes him as an anti/de-colonial thinker, which is something he also enacts in his poetry. While this collection can be a bit of a mixed bag at times, and while a few of the essays are a bit dated at this point, it is still well worth the read for anyone who is interested in de-colonial thought in North America; in particular (but not limited to) how it relates to poetry and the poetic practice.

Lee's main point throughout all these essays is to stress the importance of living in the here and now. As a Canadian, this means living the soil you stand on, instead of living with your head in the clouds of Europe and America. The status quo is that we are colonial: meaning our heads are filled with the great elsewhere. Instead of truly living here, our bodies are filled with the ideals of Hollywood, and our minds filled European history and rhythms. We will never live well until we can attune ourselves to the energies of this place.

This all breaks down into three main points (that I can see). First, there is a great, swirling, ungraspable-by-the-human-mind energy in the world and universe (and us) which Lee names Cadence. The language we have is not the language of Cadence. In order to attune ourselves to its presence, we must silence ourselves (with our European grammar) so we can begin to hear it. Second, this great energy is not singular or uni-dimensional; it is multi-faceted and varied, and when we listen we hear it as Polyphony. Attuning ourselves to what-is means first acknowledging that one voice cannot encompass all; this can mean holding things together that the rational mind will think of as contradictory. Lee's third point is to acknowledge the Impasse that modern/rational thought has led us to, and to move past it. Our cultural inheritance has not given us many tools to do this, hence the importance of first being silent so that we may better attune ourselves to the great Cadence of Being.

It would be a mistake to assume that Lee is romanticizing this Cadence and demonizing humans and our structures. Lee is not suggesting that we abandon all our structures: our structures are what make us human! The point is to experiment with our structures so they better reflect the actual world. The point is to find a way to live better (as humans) in a world that is filled with things mostly non-human; to give us tools that make us a part of the world (this place) instead of apart from it.

While this underlying theory which guides the whole book is entirely relevant, I will admit that these essays aren't always perfect. Particularly in his first essay (and the one on Al Purdy) Lee focusses a lot of energy on victimizing Canadians and our lack of identity. By victimizing white, settler Canadians, he erases the situation of actual Indigenous peoples of Canada; and he ignores how "Canadian identity" is racist and systematically oppresses the First Nations of Canada. I was feeling particularly uncomfortable when he referred to Purdy as a native speaker (and his "indigenous imaginative patrimony"). However, Lee is still making a good point (the English language can have a place in North America...if it listens and is changed by what it hears) It's just his language use that is problematic. These problems could easily be remedied with a few minor revisions to the language used. I dearly hope these revisions are made, as it is ironic for an anti-colonial thinker to use language this way; and his argument would still hold ground, and be stronger for it....more

I think this book definitely has its flaws, but I still think it is a good book and one that should be and is worth reading. This book is basically trI think this book definitely has its flaws, but I still think it is a good book and one that should be and is worth reading. This book is basically trying to interrupt and challenge some racist assumptions that the settler side has brought to North America and its indigenous peoples.

This book confronts the fact that we have many colonial ideas stuck in our heads about Indigenous cultures (and what they might have looked like before colonization). Essentially this manifests itself as an us/them binary. "European societies are complex and interesting, indigenous cultures are simple and unsophisticated. Europeans cultures have the agency to manufacture the land, while indigenous cultures don't and simply lived 'on the land'". This us/them binary which permeates our minds (because of the cultural baggage we've inherited) is, as the author puts it, simply wrong; and he goes on to show how research is proving these colonial ideas wrong (or if not proving, making a very convincing argument for it).

So there are three main ideas that this book is rejecting. The first is that indigenous societies did not heavily populate North America before colonization, and they weren't very complex. This misunderstanding stems from the fact that a huge percentage of indigenous populations were wiped about by diseases such as smallpox. While we obviously can't know for certain exactly how many people were here before smallpox, some estimates say that up to 95% of the indigenous population of North America were killed by these diseases. He cites many first hand accounts of explorers who confirm how densely populated it was. So these societies were large, and they were complex and interesting in their own ways. There was one section that I found particularly moving about the poetry and philosophy... the art that existed and was never given a chance to flourish. The second idea being opposed in the book is the idea that the indigenous peoples of North America actually migrated there relatively recently (the Bearing Straight theory). I think the idea is that if we assume the native peoples are relative newcomers, then they aren't much different from us (as migrants) and our claim to this land is relatively unproblematic. However the author shows how archeological evidence is being found that shows that people were indeed here much, much earlier than was originally assumed; and much further south, too. The last idea being rejected is that native cultures were very simple and did not manufacture/change the landscapes they lived on, but rather "lived on the land" as "natural beings". In fact these cultures had a huge impact on their landscapes, and were active manufacturers of the land. Something I found really interesting about this part was that he pointed out how environmentalists are often racist because of their assumptions about how native people lived on the land before colonization. Even though some people might think of this as a "positive" stereotype, it is essentially wrong and problematic in that it assumes native people were living in some sort of "state of nature" bullsh*t. Even if it is a "positive" stereotype, it still assumes that European cultures are somehow inherently superior to native cultures. In the afterword he also suggests that perhaps even many of our ideas about life owe some thanks to the ideas of indigenous cultures.

This is definitely the kind of stuff I wish I'd been introduced to in high school history classes. Unfortunately, my high school education was so thoroughly steeped in Eurocentrism that ideas such as these would never have made it through. I can only hope that is changing, because if we want to live better as North Americans, we need to acknowledge what our culture has done to indigenous peoples, and how our privilege is continuing to support the oppression of native cultures today. How these ideas that the book is opposing NEED to be opposed to make things right.

These are the reasons I think this book is really important to read. We need to get this through to the settler side. However I don't think the book is perfect (but hey, it's a start). Firstly, I was really bothered by his constant comparison between native cultures and European cultures. I see why he was doing that, but I suppose I just find it sad that we need to compare things to our own cultures in order to give another culture legitimacy. I also found that he focused primarily on cultures which do resemble Western culture the most (mainly the cultures that built large architecture in central and south America). However I acknowledge that this might not be so much the author's fault, as our culture's fascination with cultures that resemble our own, and our ignorance of ones that lived differently. And in the end this book is coming for Western academia (especially archeology) which is itself inherently racist and Eurocentric. Why is it that we can only believe something if it is scientifically researched in our institutions?

We have a lot of work to do. And this is a start that I appreciate....more

Don McKay's collection of creative essays begins with a question about the exchange between humans and their places. "Place" is where humans pour outDon McKay's collection of creative essays begins with a question about the exchange between humans and their places. "Place" is where humans pour out their stories and histories, yes, but it is also the place where land gets inside us. We know what the land is to us, but what are we to the land? asks McKay of the reader. What happens when we consider place from the other side of things: the land itself. The remainder of the essays are an attempt to answer this question.

But the question can't be answered so straightforwardly, and so the remainder of the book becomes a creative exploration of place, and not traditional essays. Like the clearing in the woods that McKay finds later in the book, the answer can't be approached directly; instead, it's necessary to be lost first: in this case, we need to lose our usual methods of approaching a philosophical question. The suggestion, I think, is that there are ways of knowing that our rationality (so used to being in the leading role) can't grasp. Because, of course, the answer our rational minds would give is that land is empty, neutral, nothing but resource for human ends. We'll need some different approaches if we are to explore McKay's question honestly.

Anyone who's read McKay before will be familiar with some of the themes that get explored here, including the interaction between human language and a wilderness that cannot be truly named by that language. What results is a reverence for the world that is so much greater than the small part we play on it. When we recognize this allegiance that we owe the land, it keeps our ideas of power and entitlement in check.

This is one of my favourite collections from Don McKay. It's philosophically challenging, yet accessible; and he makes me laugh a lot in this book. It also makes a good companion with his book of poetry "Strike/Slip", which has a similar focus....more

At it's base, this collection of essays from poet/thinker Tim Lilburn is putting forth a philosophy of language and ecology. Here's how I see it: in oAt it's base, this collection of essays from poet/thinker Tim Lilburn is putting forth a philosophy of language and ecology. Here's how I see it: in order to be alive as a human being, we have to be separated. This can be thought of literally: before birth, we are attached to something that is not us (a mother), and to be born we must be separated and made individual from what is other to us. You can also think of this more metaphorically, as in the creation story of Eve and Adam being expelled from the Garden of Eden. To be made human is to be alienated from the world around us: the world that we are some how a part of and apart from. For Lilburn, this leaves a scar that we want to be healed; a radical re-union with the earth. However, if we want to remain human, this is impossible. Again, we can think of this literally: we will never be a part of the earth again until we die and our bodies decompose back into it. So, to fulfil this desire of being a part of the earth would mean to end your life, to cease to be human. So, as humans, we somehow have to live with this reality and the sorrow that follows from it.

If that is our reality - that we are separated from that which is other to us - then is follows (for Lilburn and others) that we cannot truly know others (whether it be other people, creatures, landforms, places, or God). In this respect, we really are alone in the world. As Lilburn points out, the major response to this in the Western (and colonial) tradition has been to deify the human, rational intellect, and language. Through naming with language, we can presume to truly know/understand the essence of what we name. This is justified through rationality (and its counterparts) which say the world can only be known through the unclouded human intellect. Think Descartes. This is one way, says Lilburn, that we artificially heal that scar. And while we are floating in the bubbles of human thought, meanwhile the rest of the world is being affected by our blindness. So, how do we relate to the other? Under this tradition from the Western world, you can erase it, pretending it doesn't exist; of you can assimilate it to your self. This involves paring down the world (from what it actually is) to a one-dimensional human idea of it. An image I used to make sense of this was thinking of a tomato vine being pruned down to its main stalk, and nothing else. You certainly wouldn't get any fruit that way... To continue this metaphor, we can think of that main stalk as being this one form of knowing: rationality, etc. But this form of knowing can only contain so much. It actually cannot re-present the whole world. All the other stalks of the vine help complete that picture. Lilburn is not suggesting some radical union with the world at the expense of human society. As he says, we are separated, and will never know everything there is to know (what could that even mean?). This also doesn't mean that we should swing in the other direction and become hopeless and nihilistic. What we can do is respect realities that aren't ours, show compassion to the world, act courteously to others.

Lilburn, being a poet, focusses a lot of the book on language. Especially language as a force that colonizes the world (and our approach/understanding of it). Given what I've said above, it follows that our he believes our language does not spring out of the things it represents, but rather is imposed on them, and therefore clouds what they truly are from us. The signifier is not the same thing as what it signifies! So, language clouds reality from us. Lilburn states that knowing this does not stop us from desiring that our language get closer and closer to the world. Again, complete union is impossible; however language is not something static and unchanging. This means that through intentional exercise, we can aid in shaping language to more truly reflect what is. Poetry itself comes in as a sort of language exercise that distances it from the tyrannical control of rationality, and brings it closer to what is (at least, if this is a concern of the poet who is writing). In order to get language closer to what is, it must be shaped by the world as well, not merely the human. If we practice this sort of intention in our daily lives, it follows that our thoughts will be changed as well. Better thoughts can lead to better interactions with others and the world. Can lead to courtesy. Can lead to more accountable ways of being in the world. I might never really understand you, but that doesn't mean I can't be kind; that I can't act in a way that won't impede your flourishing in the world.

Unfortunately, a lot of the ideology that makes living poorly in the world possible is heavily ingrained in us, and it will take a lot of work to unsettle it. A good starting place, says Lilburn, is in the act of contemplation. Being quiet in front of the world, and letting it speak to you. Letting these realities soak in, and not reacting against them. And from there? We can't end with contemplation (although it is a vital part of the process). In the end, we must return to language use, even though we know it to be flawed (it's all that we can do). For Lilburn, this creates a condition where we must praise the world with language, and then immediately throw it aside. And then try again (and throw the attempt away again). This type of language use, paired with the contemplative process, will result in something that is a little closer to the world each time (but never quite getting there). And in a way, there is a sort of knowing in this process. We must name things, but never take those names too seriously; always be aware of that distance. By being aware of this, we are thwarting any chances that we will fall back into assimilating or erasing the other.

This book finds itself among a small tradition that seems to have formed in Canada. Don McKay and Jan Zwicky, two other poet/thinkers, are part of this conversation as well. In many ways, what they have to say strikes me as being very similar to what Lilburn says (although they have very different ways of approaching and expressing it). (For McKay, start with Vis a Vis; for Zwicky, try Lyric Philosophy). I have to admit, though, that I wonder about Lilburn. Where McKay feels much more playful and joyful, Lilburn feels sorrowful and defeated, at times. It's possible this tone won't appeal to everyone (even those who might agree with his philosophical assumptions). And in the end, to an extent, we have to be happy with our human structures, with our homes. We need them. I think (although I do love this book), that I prefer a more playful approach to this problem. There is a tricky balance that needs to be struck in our approach to the world (maybe... a balance between that sorrow and playfulness? Feeling both?). How to follow Lilburn's philosophies without completely undermining the worth of the self (to not continually be thinking of ourselves as worthless)? I don't necessarily think this is where Lilburn is at (he is quite playful, if you look at the energy of the text), but it might have that effect on someone reading it. In the end, I love this book, and think you should read it if you are interested in these topics; but maybe the solution is to not stop here: keep reading! Keep searching. Keep striving towards what it means to be a good human being.

This is the book version of the 2009 CBC Massey Lecture (the "pinnacle" of Canadian intellectualism, if you will). There's a lot of interesting stuffThis is the book version of the 2009 CBC Massey Lecture (the "pinnacle" of Canadian intellectualism, if you will). There's a lot of interesting stuff going on in these lectures, but there's a lot of problems as well. Davis' basic argument is this: there is a multiplicity of cultural expressions which humans have formed throughout their collective history; these expressions will take the form of a specific language; these specific languages each reflect a singular manner of interpreting, interacting with, and understanding the surrounding world – in other words, specific language creates a unique reality. Davis’s vision is that every language/culture which has developed should co-exist on earth (keeping in mind that there is a natural life cycle of languages and culture) without hierarchy; these languages are also, ideally, always participating in a conversation which asks: what kind of world do we want to inhabit.

Having summed that up, I have to say that I can't disagree with anything he says directly: it's a beautiful vision of a world where all cultures co-exist peacefully and without hierarchy, and all voices are valued and listened to. Unfortunately the structure of these lectures actually contradicts the message Davis is attempting to convey. First, Davis claims he wants to value all voices and cultures of the world, yet it is clear that the Western, academic voice is, still, valued above all. The scientific history of human beings is presented as absolute truth (humans all came from Africa...etc.) - yet this "voice", if you will, is given a privilege that the other "voices" of the lectures aren't. It is clear that Davis believes that other cultures have something valuable to tell Western culture, but I don't honestly believe that Davis would give up the privilege he has as a Western academic. These "other" cultures are simply something that Davis dabbles in as an anthropologist, and these other cultures are never given their own voice - they are always translated through Davis's experience. Davis also claims at one point that the scientific history of human beings shouldn't conflict with the creation stories of many "traditional" cultures - but how does that work? It seems to me that Davis is just appropriating culture and wisdom from other peoples from his place of privilege as a Western academic...more

This should be required reading for all Canadians (and Americans, too). In this collection of essays you'll find the fundamental ideas of post-coloniaThis should be required reading for all Canadians (and Americans, too). In this collection of essays you'll find the fundamental ideas of post-colonial theory as it relates to the indigenous peoples of Canada and America.

The basic idea of the book is that we are only the stories we tell about ourselves; and sometimes we are the stories that other people tell about us. King demonstrates how colonial culture has told stories (and continues to tell stories) about native peoples of North America, and the harmful effects they've had (and continue to have) on those cultures. Of course the message is also that there is hope, and indigenous cultures have come to a place (after colonization) where they can begin to tell their own stories again (to contemperary North American society as a whole). However, first all North Americans (no matter what your skin colour) must acknowledge these stories that have been told for what they are.

And King is such a great writer / speaker. Everyone should read this....more

I couldn't get into this book too much. In part I know that is because I approached it expecting it would be something different. I was hoping to learI couldn't get into this book too much. In part I know that is because I approached it expecting it would be something different. I was hoping to learn more about geology as it is understood today. And I was also interested in the idea of metaphor and deep time.

What this book is, really, is a historical look at the "pre-history" of geology (as a science) if you will. It studies three geological thinkers, and really attempts to figure out why they thought what they did, from their own perspectives (without using modern biases against them). And it's all framed by the idea that time has been thought of as being either a continuous line, or a revolving cycle (Gould's suggestion is, I think, that we need to hold on to both ideas to come to a truer understanding of time). One thing I really appreciate about Gould is his ability to show how historical cultural understandings of the world determine how people think of the world scientifically. The implicit suggestion is that our current scientific understanding of the world is probably just as arbitrary (and based on current cultural philosophies/ideologies, etc) as the past's was.

I can only imagine this book being interesting to people who actually study geology, and who want to learn more about the people who pioneered the science. But I also get the impression that that isn't Gould's target audience (his writing style seems to have a mass appeal feel to it).

Anyway, I don't know what to say about this book. I don't really recommend it, unless you are particularly interested in the thinkers Gould is talking about. Some parts of it were vaguely interesting, but not much more....more

This is Don Mckay's third book of collected essays / musings on wilderness, place, and poetry. I have a lot of love for his first two (vis a vis &This is Don Mckay's third book of collected essays / musings on wilderness, place, and poetry. I have a lot of love for his first two (vis a vis & deactivated west 100), so was fairly excited when I heard he had a new collection coming out. After I had read the first couple of essays in this book, however, I was feeling less excited about it, and a bit unsure about this collection. Something I really liked about his other essays is his ability to write in a creative way that is deeply philosophical, but is also enacting the type of writing he is talking about. Basically, I found his other books of essays more fun to read, and inspiring. The essays in this book feel more traditionally academic. And I suppose that might be because most of these essays were written for more traditional academic settings (a few were originally talks he gave, or introductions to anthologies). I also thought that there wasn't anything profoundly new about what he was saying in these essays - he's said most of it before I think. The second essay is particularly academic feeling, as it is a study of Canadian nature poetries (something I might have read for my English Lit. degree). The second half of the book is definitely a bit better than the first: the essays are a bit more enjoyable. The real treat, and the best thing here in my opinion, is that The Muskwa Assemblage is printed in here: a creative peice, a collection of poems, creative musings etc. And it's really really great. I'm glad it's here, because the original publication of it is like $50 or something. So thanks Gaspereau Press! All in all though, this is a good collection. Everything Don is saying is, I think, really important and beautiful. Anyone who enjoys his work is sure to enjoy these too, and find his ideas very thought provoking and fertile ground for thinking. I suppose I just prefer his others. I also suppose that everybody's different, and some might prefer the more traditionally academic tone he writes with here....more